In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
john james wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
john james wrote:
Always seemed odd that MPs (and governments) are happy to be elected
by a small percentage of those eligible to vote - but want different
rules for others.

There isn't really any viable alternative with MPs except
compulsory voting and that has real downsides too.

Lots of viable alternatives. Getting rid of the first past the post
system, so all those who vote get at least some representation.

That isn't a viable alternative, it means that all governments
are coalitions and most of them are very unstable.

Compulsory
voting with a 'none of the above' option.

That doesnt achieve anything. What are
you going to do if that particular vote is the
majority, not have anyone elected to that seat ?

And so on.

There is no and so on.


Ok then. So explain why compulsory voting (or an absolute majority etc) is
ok when mooted for union matters?

It's different type of vote.
--
bert

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
john james wrote:
Ok then. So explain why compulsory voting (or an absolute majority
etc) is ok when mooted for union matters?

I didn't say that was OK but it does make
some sense when say deciding whether
to go out on strike or return to work.

Strikes generally last for a few days at most.

But can be very disruptive at times.

Governments, 5 years?

But there are real downsides with compulsory
voting for those that aren't seen with voting
on a strike or return to work.

In message , Adrian
writes
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:12:41 +0000, bert wrote:

Ignore big scary numbers with lots of zeroes, and look at %ages of GDP.
The deficit is still present but down hugely, and debt is large but
manageable.

But GDP Doesn't represent wealth. It doesn't take into account debt.

It's roughly equivalent to the country's salary.
No it isn't. It's a measure of "economic activity" including how much we
spend on prostitution and illegal drugs.
And somebody's salary
doesn't take debt into account, either. Is all debt bad? Is having a
mortgage bad?

It is if it gets bigger and bigger and bigger
Our debt s about £1.4 trillion

Net, about 80% of GDP.

Meaningless comparison
If somebody's total debt, including your mortgage, was 80% of their
salary, they wouldn't be exactly in deep ****, would they?

They would be if it was continually growing, but your comparison is
based on the false premise above
Have a look at this :-
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/73121000/jpg/
_73121362_e509d73f-85b0-4f92-b8a0-ea5f72528641.jpg

and now rising at the rate of about £100bn per annum.

Woo. About 6%, down from a peak of 11%. Like I said, ignore the big scary
numbers... Still not great, sure. But a damn sight better. Good will only
happen once the deficit goes, and there's a surplus, which'll mean the
government can start to reduce off some of the debt.

Which supports my argument.
That is not sustainable in the long term. And merely increasing GDP by
borrowing more or inflating the public sector doesn't tackle the
problem.

You don't quite understand what GDP is, let alone what "deficit" and
"debt" are in this context, do you?

Have you stopped beating your wife?
GDP is the total size of the country's economy.
Exactly. It's not salary it's not income it's not wealth.
Debt is the amount the government owe
.
You don't say.
Deficit is the amount the government spend more than they receive.

You don't say.
So, apart from the subtle detail that "borrowing more" won't do much to
reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio, increasing the public sector - government
spending - is not exactly a great way to reduce the deficit...

No but it inflates GDP which is the point I was making
The only way in which deficit-to-GDP or debt-to-GDP will reduce is if
either the government spend a lot LESS (not more, as you're suggesting),
or GDP - which primarily comes from the private sector - grows.
I'm glad you agree with me
--
bert

In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Adrian
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:12:41 +0000, bert wrote:

That is not sustainable in the long term. And merely increasing GDP
by borrowing more or inflating the public sector doesn't tackle the
problem.

You don't quite understand what GDP is, let alone what "deficit" and
"debt" are in this context, do you?

GDP is the total size of the country's economy.
Debt is the ...

total

... amount the government owes.

Deficit is the amount the government spends ...

each year

... more than it receives.

So, apart from the subtle detail that "borrowing more" won't do much
to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio, increasing the public sector -
government spending - is not exactly a great way to reduce the deficit...

The only way in which deficit-to-GDP or debt-to-GDP will reduce is if
either the government spend a lot LESS (not more, as you're
suggesting), or GDP - which primarily comes from the private sector -
grows.

I thought that was wot bert said.

Indeed it was.
--
bert

In message , Nightjar
writes
On 16/02/2015 14:12, bert wrote:
In message , Adrian
...
The economy's not great - sure - because of a global mire, which (yes)
the UK was partly responsible for. But it's nowhere near as bad as most
of our competitors, and it's improving rapidly.

Ignore big scary numbers with lots of zeroes, and look at %ages of GDP.
The deficit is still present but down hugely, and debt is large but
manageable.

But GDP Doesn't represent wealth. It doesn't take into account debt. Our
debt s about £1.4 trillion and now rising at the rate of about £100bn
per annum. That is not sustainable in the long term.

Nor is it expected it will be. As a percentage of GDP, our national
debt will probably start to reduce after next year. The national
deficit is reducing and is expected to become a surplus around 2017.
Our net borrowing is reducing - we borrowed about £150bn in 2009 - and
is projected to reach zero around 2019. Of course, that may depend upon
who is in power.

Just as it was forecast to disappear by 2015. But I hope you are right.
And merely
increasing GDP by borrowing more or inflating the public sector doesn't
tackle the problem.

Borrowing to invest,
Unfortunately for a lot of politicians that is the same as borrowing to
spend. An investment produces a return which can take different forms.
which can be a major part of our borrowing, helps to reduce the
deficit
In the long term
and if government can increase its assets that can reduce or avoid
borrowing.


It reduces borrowings by increasing its income or by reducing its
expenditure (capital and/or revenue) or bit of both. It is assumed that
by increasing GDP tax revenue will increase.
--
bert

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:12:41 +0000, bert wrote:

Ignore big scary numbers with lots of zeroes, and look at %ages of GDP.
The deficit is still present but down hugely, and debt is large but
manageable.

But GDP Doesn't represent wealth. It doesn't take into account debt.

It's roughly equivalent to the country's salary.

No it is not.

And somebody's salary doesn't take debt into account, either.

Someone's salary is not a measure of how well they are doing.

Is all debt bad?

No. But high levels of debt do mean that a lot of the
tax revenue goes on the interest paid on that debt.

Is having a mortgage bad?

No, but it can be when the mortgage payments
are a large percentage of your income.

Our debt s about £1.4 trillion

Net, about 80% of GDP.

If somebody's total debt, including your mortgage, was 80% of their
salary, they wouldn't be exactly in deep ****, would they?

GDP isn't anything like salary.

Have a look at this :-
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/73121000/jpg/
_73121362_e509d73f-85b0-4f92-b8a0-ea5f72528641.jpg

and now rising at the rate of about £100bn per annum.

Woo. About 6%, down from a peak of 11%. Like I said, ignore the big scary
numbers... Still not great, sure. But a damn sight better. Good will only
happen once the deficit goes, and there's a surplus, which'll mean the
government can start to reduce off some of the debt.

That is not sustainable in the long term. And merely increasing GDP by
borrowing more or inflating the public sector doesn't tackle the
problem.

You don't quite understand what GDP is, let alone what "deficit" and
"debt" are in this context, do you?

GDP is the total size of the country's economy.

Quite a bit of the real economy isn't counted as part of the GDP.

Debt is the amount the government owe.

Debt is also what non government owes.

Deficit is the amount the government spend more than they receive.

So, apart from the subtle detail that "borrowing more" won't do much to
reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio, increasing the public sector - government
spending - is not exactly a great way to reduce the deficit...

The only way in which deficit-to-GDP or debt-to-GDP will reduce is if
either the government spend a lot LESS (not more, as you're suggesting),
or GDP - which primarily comes from the private sector - grows.

The government can also increase taxes substantially
and reduce government debt that way. That is in fact
how the US government dramatically reduced the
debt to GDP ratio after WW2 had ended.

On 16/02/2015 22:51, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:

That is assuming
that we stay in the EU and don't convert an economy currently growing at
2.6% to one that is shrinks by about 2.25%.


I think you have that assumption back to front.

What ever you may want to think, 2.25% is the projected permanent loss
we would suffer, according to the National Institute of Economic and
Social Research, largely due to the loss of foreign direct investment.

--
Colin Bignell

In message , Capitol
writes
bert wrote:
Like totally unprotected tenancies for the Rachmans of the property world

What's changed? Tenants have no security and the rents are
causing a property bubble.
Are you familiar with the Rachman story?
--
bert

In message , Adrian
writes
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:01:28 +0000, bert wrote:

Channel 4 did offer Nigel Farage the chance to reply in an interview
with Jon Snow to be shown after the programme. He has declined the
offer.

But he hasn't been offered the opportunity to see the program before it
is aired.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015...irst-100-days-
channel-4_n_6686780.html

"Channel 4's head of documentaries Nick Mirsky said... "We did invite
Farage to come and do an interview after the programme in which case he
would have seen it before it went out but he declined."
Ah a conditional offer.
--
bert

On 16/02/2015 14:35, bert wrote:
In message , The Medway Handyman
writes
On 12/02/2015 16:31, Bod wrote:
On 12/02/2015 15:58, Tim Watts wrote:
On 12/02/15 14:46, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 12/02/2015 10:53, Tim Watts wrote:

Now - tell me again why UKIP (or any other fringe party) are somehow
worse that all this?...

They want to take us out of the EU for a start.

They probably should - we are getting hamstrung in way too many central
dictacts.

I thought we joined the EU for the common market, not the dictatorship
that the EU has developed into.
THAT's what a *lot* of people are miffed about.
The EU has been a dripping tap, slowly but surely getting more and more
powers over us.


I agreed with the decision to join the Common Market, but not the EU.

And if I'm a member of the EU, why do I have to show a passport to go
from England to France?

Because without it we won't let you back in.

Plus, of course, like many other European countries, in France you are
supposed to be able to prove your identity to the authorities on demand
and we don't have national ID cards.

--
Colin Bignell

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Strikes generally last for a few days at most.

Ive seen strikes bring down and outlast governments.

Only if that government wanted it to happen.

It's unlikely any government would choose to be brought down.

Any strike can be settled.

Only by caving in to unreasonable demands with the worst of them.

Unions and the Labour party and strikes are the reason Margaret Thatcher
got elected, and you know it.

And perhaps the reason she got chucked out on her ear.

She never did get chucked out on her ear by the voters.

Rather like UKIP.

Nothing like UKIP in fact.

A (sadly) large percentage of the country look for a
simplistic reason for problems.

Yes.

And are easily lead by the press, etc.

I don’t believe that the press leads anyone.

Thatcher was just easily lead.

She wasn’t lead by anyone, that was the real problem with her.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/02/15 14:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Thatcher was just easily lead.

Now I really know you are delusional.

Did you ever meet her? Have a private conversation with her?

Obviously not or you'd know what I'm talking about.

How odd that none of her senior MPs ever managed
to do that and in fact had to assassinate her eventually.

"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:
On 16/02/2015 14:12, bert wrote:
In message , Adrian
...
The economy's not great - sure - because of a global mire, which (yes)
the UK was partly responsible for. But it's nowhere near as bad as most
of our competitors, and it's improving rapidly.

Ignore big scary numbers with lots of zeroes, and look at %ages of GDP.
The deficit is still present but down hugely, and debt is large but
manageable.

But GDP Doesn't represent wealth. It doesn't take into account debt. Our
debt s about £1.4 trillion and now rising at the rate of about £100bn
per annum. That is not sustainable in the long term.

Nor is it expected it will be. As a percentage of GDP, our national debt
will probably start to reduce after next year. The national deficit is
reducing and is expected to become a surplus around 2017. Our net
borrowing is reducing - we borrowed about £150bn in 2009 - and is
projected to reach zero around 2019. Of course, that may depend upon who
is in power.

And merely
increasing GDP by borrowing more or inflating the public sector doesn't
tackle the problem.

Borrowing to invest, which can be a major part of our borrowing, helps
to reduce the deficit and if government can increase its assets that can
reduce or avoid borrowing.

You seem to be another one who believes in fairies.

No fairys involved.

Until spending reduces below income

That's just one approach. The other obvious alternative is to
increase the income/tax collected so that it covers the spending.

all that happens is that you become bankrupt as you can't pay your debts.

Countrys don’t work like that.

The money printing, borrowing process the UK is involved in,is known as
"kicking the can down the road".

Only by those who don’t have clue.

Its actually the way the west got out of the great depression.

The USA is another good case of this,

Nope.

but at least they allowed their property market to correct.

It wasn’t 'allowed', their bubble was MUCH
worse than was seen in Britain and corrected
when the bubble inevitably burst.

An increase in interest rates for government debt will cause the whole
house of cards to fall.

How odd that it didn’t the last time.

In article . com,
Dennis@home wrote:
On 16/02/2015 14:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Strikes generally last for a few days at most.

Ive seen strikes bring down and outlast governments.

Only if that government wanted it to happen. Any strike can be settled.

Only if the workers agree.

Which is what happens with a settlement. ;-)

--
*If you don't pay your exorcist you get repossessed.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/02/15 14:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Thatcher was just easily lead.

Now I really know you are delusional.

Did you ever meet her? Have a private conversation with her?

Obviously not or you'd know what I'm talking about.

How odd that none of her senior MPs ever managed
to do that and in fact had to assassinate her eventually.

She had a pretty low opinion of many of her senior MPs.

--
*The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 16/02/15 23:34, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 16/02/2015 22:51, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:

That is assuming
that we stay in the EU and don't convert an economy currently growing at
2.6% to one that is shrinks by about 2.25%.


I think you have that assumption back to front.

What ever you may want to think, 2.25% is the projected permanent loss
we would suffer, according to the National Institute of Economic and
Social Research, largely due to the loss of foreign direct investment.

I wonder who funds the National Institute of Economic and Social
Research...

....and how they missed the extra exports we would make to the rest of
the world.

Some of which isn't broke and busted.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 17/02/15 02:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/02/15 23:34, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 16/02/2015 22:51, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:

That is assuming
that we stay in the EU and don't convert an economy currently
growing at
2.6% to one that is shrinks by about 2.25%.


I think you have that assumption back to front.

What ever you may want to think, 2.25% is the projected permanent loss
we would suffer, according to the National Institute of Economic and
Social Research, largely due to the loss of foreign direct investment.

I wonder who funds the National Institute of Economic and Social
Research...

Oh look

"Although we are a charity and our ultimate purpose is to inform the
public debate, we receive little or no core funding from government or
other sources. Instead, we carry out research commissioned from a
variety of sources: *government departments and agencies*, the research
councils, particularly the *Economic and Social Research Council*, the
*European Commission*, charitable foundations, and the private sector.
We are partners in two ESRC research centres (LLAKES and the Institute
for Macroeconomics). We frequently work in partnership with experts in
universities and other research institutes on larger projects. "

Same old same old EU and government funding machine via the universitoes
and the LSE etc etc.



...and how they missed the extra exports we would make to the rest of
the world.

Some of which isn't broke and busted.




--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

"Capitol" wrote in message
...
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:

That is assuming
that we stay in the EU and don't convert an economy currently growing at
2.6% to one that is shrinks by about 2.25%.


I think you have that assumption back to front.

That's not an assumption with the current growth rate.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
Dennis@home wrote:
On 16/02/2015 14:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Strikes generally last for a few days at most.

Ive seen strikes bring down and outlast governments.

Only if that government wanted it to happen. Any strike can be settled.

Only if the workers agree.

Which is what happens with a settlement. ;-)

But you don’t get a settlement when they don’t.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/02/15 14:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Thatcher was just easily lead.

Now I really know you are delusional.

Did you ever meet her? Have a private conversation with her?

Obviously not or you'd know what I'm talking about.

How odd that none of her senior MPs ever managed
to do that and in fact had to assassinate her eventually.

She had a pretty low opinion of many of her senior MPs.

So she clearly wasn’t easily lead as you claimed.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 16/02/15 23:34, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 16/02/2015 22:51, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:

That is assuming
that we stay in the EU and don't convert an economy currently growing
at
2.6% to one that is shrinks by about 2.25%.


I think you have that assumption back to front.

What ever you may want to think, 2.25% is the projected permanent loss
we would suffer, according to the National Institute of Economic and
Social Research, largely due to the loss of foreign direct investment.

I wonder who funds the National Institute of Economic and Social
Research...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...ocial_Research

...and how they missed the extra exports we would make to the rest of the
world.

You haven't established that there would be any of those.

Some of which isn't broke and busted.

On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 02:03:35 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

...and how they missed the extra exports we would make to the rest of
the world.

And how, exactly, would being outside the EU allow us to make extra
exports to the rest of the world?

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 23:21:15 +0000, bert wrote:

GDP is the total size of the country's economy.

Exactly. It's not salary it's not income it's not wealth.

I rather suspect you're conflating the Gov'ts income/expenditure with the
country's income/expenditure.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 23:21:15 +0000, bert wrote:

GDP is the total size of the country's economy.

Exactly. It's not salary it's not income it's not wealth.

I rather suspect you're conflating the Gov'ts income/expenditure with the
country's income/expenditure.

No, that is roughly what GDP is.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 02:03:35 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

...and how they missed the extra exports we would make to the rest of
the world.

And how, exactly, would being outside the EU allow us to make extra
exports to the rest of the world?

Most obviously with those that choose not to fart around
with the EU regulations on how what they buy is paid for.

Just ran into that recently with the way you pay for
a news.individual.net subscription. The recent EU
stupidity with paying for that sort of thing has
seen some choose to use something else instead.

I paid for a few years in advance, assuming that
eventually either the EU would come to its senses
or NIN would choose to do what it takes to allow
those outside the EU to continue to use their service.

On 17/02/2015 02:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/02/15 23:34, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 16/02/2015 22:51, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:

That is assuming
that we stay in the EU and don't convert an economy currently
growing at
2.6% to one that is shrinks by about 2.25%.


I think you have that assumption back to front.

What ever you may want to think, 2.25% is the projected permanent loss
we would suffer, according to the National Institute of Economic and
Social Research, largely due to the loss of foreign direct investment.

I wonder who funds the National Institute of Economic and Social
Research...

You are back to your conspiracy theories, which only emphasises that you
have no hard evidence to back up your or UKIP's claims.

...and how they missed the extra exports we would make to the rest of
the world...

So why aren't we making those exports now? There is nothing about
belonging to the EU that stops us. Germany manages it quite well.


--
Colin Bignell

On 17/02/15 08:09, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 02:03:35 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

...and how they missed the extra exports we would make to the rest of
the world.

And how, exactly, would being outside the EU allow us to make extra
exports to the rest of the world?

Being allowed to cut our own deals instead of EU deals for start.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 17/02/15 08:11, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 23:21:15 +0000, bert wrote:

GDP is the total size of the country's economy.

Exactly. It's not salary it's not income it's not wealth.

I rather suspect you're conflating the Gov'ts income/expenditure with the
country's income/expenditure.

Until we achieve full Eurocommunist integration, they are not the same
thing.

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/02/2015 02:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/02/15 23:34, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 16/02/2015 22:51, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:

That is assuming
that we stay in the EU and don't convert an economy currently
growing at
2.6% to one that is shrinks by about 2.25%.


I think you have that assumption back to front.

What ever you may want to think, 2.25% is the projected permanent loss
we would suffer, according to the National Institute of Economic and
Social Research, largely due to the loss of foreign direct investment.

I wonder who funds the National Institute of Economic and Social
Research...

You are back to your conspiracy theories, which only emphasises that you
have no hard evidence to back up your or UKIP's claims.

...and how they missed the extra exports we would make to the rest of
the world...

So why aren't we making those exports now?

Because the EU system stops that or makes it less
convenient than with your competitors like the US.

There is nothing about belonging to the EU that stops us.

Wrong.

Germany manages it quite well.

Doesnt do as well as Japan or South Korea.

On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:31:03 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I rather suspect you're conflating the Gov'ts income/expenditure with
the country's income/expenditure.

Until we achieve full Eurocommunist integration, they are not the same
thing.

I'll add "conflate" to the long list of words and concepts you don't
understand, shall I?

On 17/02/15 10:05, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:31:03 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I rather suspect you're conflating the Gov'ts income/expenditure with
the country's income/expenditure.

Until we achieve full Eurocommunist integration, they are not the same
thing.

I'll add "conflate" to the long list of words and concepts you don't
understand, shall I?

No.

Read again carefully.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 10:22:43 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I rather suspect you're conflating the Gov'ts income/expenditure with
the country's income/expenditure.

Until we achieve full Eurocommunist integration, they are not the same
thing.

I'll add "conflate" to the long list of words and concepts you don't
understand, shall I?

No.

Read again carefully.

shrug Fine. So you were pointing out that two different things were
different, in reply to a post suggesting somebody might have confused
them.

bert wrote:
In message , Capitol
writes
bert wrote:
Like totally unprotected tenancies for the Rachmans of the property
world

What's changed? Tenants have no security and the rents are causing a
property bubble.
Are you familiar with the Rachman story?

Very. My comments are valid.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Which is what happens with a settlement. ;-)


I prefer the Reagan solution.

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Which is what happens with a settlement. ;-)


I prefer the Reagan solution.

Getting shot?

--
*Bigamy is having one wife too many - monogamy is the same

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 17/02/15 10:29, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 10:22:43 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I rather suspect you're conflating the Gov'ts income/expenditure with
the country's income/expenditure.

Until we achieve full Eurocommunist integration, they are not the same
thing.

I'll add "conflate" to the long list of words and concepts you don't
understand, shall I?

No.

Read again carefully.

shrug Fine. So you were pointing out that two different things were
different, in reply to a post suggesting somebody might have confused
them.

Er no, that isn't what conflate means.

It means 'added together'

I assumed it meant that GDP which includes government spending had been
added to government spending.

I responded to YOUR confusion, by assuming *you* meant that someone had
actually taken them for the same thing by pointing out that under a full
communist economy, they were.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 17/02/2015 02:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/02/15 23:34, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 16/02/2015 22:51, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:

That is assuming
that we stay in the EU and don't convert an economy currently
growing at
2.6% to one that is shrinks by about 2.25%.


I think you have that assumption back to front.

What ever you may want to think, 2.25% is the projected permanent loss
we would suffer, according to the National Institute of Economic and
Social Research, largely due to the loss of foreign direct investment.

I wonder who funds the National Institute of Economic and Social
Research...

...and how they missed the extra exports we would make to the rest of
the world.

If there are extra exports what's stopping us doing it now?
Is this just another one of UKIPs empty promises?
Maybe you mean selling arms to terrorists or something like that?

On 17/02/2015 09:49, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
....
So why aren't we making those exports now?

Because the EU system stops that or makes it less
convenient than with your competitors like the US....

The correct answer is that Britain has long failed to exploit emerging
overseas markets and was being criticised for that failure well before
the recession.


--
Colin Bignell

On 17/02/15 14:00, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 17/02/2015 09:49, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
...
So why aren't we making those exports now?

Because the EU system stops that or makes it less
convenient than with your competitors like the US....

The correct answer is that Britain has long failed to exploit emerging
overseas markets and was being criticised for that failure well before
the recession.


It is not up to Britain to negotiate trade deals with the rest of the
world. That is what the EU does.

Including onward shipments through EU ports, Britain does more trade
outside the EU than in it.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:33:48 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

So why aren't we making those exports now?

Because the EU system stops that or makes it less convenient than
with your competitors like the US....

The correct answer is that Britain has long failed to exploit emerging
overseas markets and was being criticised for that failure well before
the recession.

It is not up to Britain to negotiate trade deals with the rest of the
world. That is what the EU does.

And the exact same trade deals apply to the UK - which is apparently
failing to export - as to Germany - which is exporting hand-over-fist.

So I guess it can't be those, then.